Woman Texting Boyfriend Not Liable For The Car Crash He Was In While Texting Back
from the common-sense-prevails dept
A few years ago, we noted the slight trend of people suing mobile operators over car crashes with drivers who were on their phones. Those lawsuits haven't gone very far, but with the rise of "texting while driving" as a big issue these days, someone apparently tried to blame a woman who texted her boyfriend for a car accident, because as he attempted to reply, he plowed into a couple on a motorcycle. The lawyer for the couple argued that the woman should have known that her boyfriend was driving at the time they were texting. Even if that was true, that hardly means she's to blame for the accident in any legal sense. Thankfully, the judge readily agreed, dismissing the case against her, and noting that the responsibility is on the recipient. Otherwise there would be some perverse results:Rand said it's reasonable for text message senders to assume the recipients will behave responsibly, and he also noted drivers are bombarded with many forms of distraction, whether they be text messages, notifications from smartphones, GPS devices or signs along the road.
"Were I to extend this duty to this case, in my judgment, any form of distraction could potentially serve as the basis of a liability case," Rand said.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It would completely leave out any form of personal responsibility. There will always be a way to blame someone for anything we do.
In this case, the woman sending the message, could blame someone else for making her send the said message.
Is it that hard to simply assume that he made a mistake and find a way to solve the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is always someone else to blame, and if you think you can get paid you sue.
The guy who hit them won't be a windfall so lets find someone else to add to the pool.
While the crash was horrific, the only person to actually blame is the driver who hit them.
He decided to answer a text.
He decided to look away from the road.
He decided he could do this while driving.
He made a decision that screwed up other peoples lives, but to blame the person who texted him is out there.
Did they name the carrier, the company that made the phone, the car maker for not having text blocking technology, the state for not having enough signs telling people to not answer texts, the person who "invented" texting, the motorcycle manufacturer for not having a texting driver near you alarm.
If you want to extrapolate out responsibility go all the way.
The couple who were hit should sue each other for allowing each other to be on the motorcycle where they could be hit under this idea.
But hey they plan to appeal, so obviously they don't see the flaw in their logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Parents will no longer be allowed to ask their kids if they want to 'color', they will now have to ask if their kids would like to apply colored dye to paper using marking objects.
Coloring books will now be referred to as "Line drawing books that allow empty spaces to be filled with colored dye by users".
If Color can be trademarked, what's next? Crayon? Pencil? Eraser?... oh crap, that one was already a movie, I'm going to get the DMCA hammer bigtime for that one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They guy SHOULD have just pull over to the side then reply/call back rather do it while he drives.
It's the driver's fault for the accident, not his girlfriend who have no idea that her boyfriend was driving in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would hope that no one stops and thinks, oh could they be driving when they send a text, email, or make a call to someone else. We'd never make contact ever again.
People getting contacted have to make the right decisions.
If you have a headset, answer the call or wait... we have voicemail. If its really important they will keep calling and calling till you pickup.
If you have text to speech features, use them.
If none of the above pull over, or check at the next light.
But not while the car is in motion...
Here is another example of what can happen if we do the wrong thing, it is terrible and tragic... but many of us sometime this week will answer a call or a text in the car this week. "It'll never happen to me"... and we hope it won't but when it does there is no one to blame but yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it's a stupid thing to do
free verse and haiku
.... burma shave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, it's a good thing the judge had the common sense to throw it out. Imagine if he allowed it, where would the burden of proof be for other texting and driving cases? Is everyone who ever texts someone potentially liable if the person they're texting might be driving and stupid enough to text them back before getting where they're going? And speaking of other distractions, clearly we should sue the victims the next time an inexperienced driver gets target fixation and runs over someone. I mean, they must be liable for the driver's distraction since they were the source of it.
In fact, if someone was permitted to sue me for texting someone while driving, I'd probably sue them back for being an obstacle to the driver, because they'd be at least as at fault as I would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've never..
When two motorcyclists meet they will start discussing their accidents.
Seriously, riding a motorcycle is asking for trouble. In this case the driver may be at fault - but if you ride a motorbike it is only a matter of time before you have a serious accident.
In my book riding a motorcycle in itself amounts to contributory negligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've never..
We are only safe if we surround ourselves with tons of metal and plastic and speed along at 60+ MPH?
I think you have it backwards.
Tons of metal hurtling along is much more dangerous than a few hundred pounds worth.
What is easier to turn? To stop? 18 wheeler or bicycle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've never..
What's easier to stop? A bicycle hit by an 18 wheeler, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've never..
At least it provides food for thought.
/ducks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've never..
That's the key. Bicycling, for example, would certainly be safer if everyone was doing it - but on a road shared with cars not so much. And whatever vehicle you choose, you can be the finest driver in the world with lightning-fast reflexes, and it's still always possible for some other idiot to kill you in the blink of an eye without giving you even an instant to react.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've never..
The other thing I love, is after all the bitching cyclists do, a lot of them treat pedestrians as bad as drivers treat bikes. As a pedestrian, I'm constantly on the look out for bad drivers and bicyclists that keep trying to run me down.
Yes, I know there are a lot of bad pedestrians too that jaywalk and put themselves in danger too.
Bottom line, everyone would be safer if everyone would pay attention and drive/bike/walk in a safe manner. But since it seems most people only care about themselves, we'll constantly have these injuries/deaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've never..
Road accidents are common, and I'm pretty sure everyone has one in their lifetime. Also, humans are fallible, mistakes happen... a moment of distraction, bad judgement... it happens to everyone and nobody can prevent it, even if the law assumes we can be perfect if we simply try to be.
So knowing how likely accidents are and that most accidents aren't caused by sheer stupidity but simply by the fact that humans occasionally make mistakes, people who ride bikes are just taking a very unreasonable risk, and they should take responsibility for it.
I do not want to take responsibility for those who choose unreasonably unsafe vehicles.
Bikes are unsafe, they don't belong on roads, they should be banned. As simple as that.
How come cars require the use of seat-belts by law, but bikes are fine to drive? Driving a car without wearing a seat-belt is still way safer than riding a bike!
The only reason we still have bikes on roads is because bikers are a huge and vocal group. It's really really hard to force some common sense on such a group by banning their bikes from public roads.
If I ever get involved in an accident with a bike, I'm suing the biker even if I'm responsible for the accident. At the very least I'll sue because the sight of his injuries or the guilt I feel for my involvement caused me strong emotional distress, and he could have prevented that by driving a safer vehicle like a car. You're all warned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've never..
How come cars require the use of seat-belts by law, but bikes are fine to drive? Driving a car without wearing a seat-belt is still way safer than riding a bike!
As a cyclist in a busy city core, I think cars are unsafe and don't belong on dense downtown roads, and should be banned there. Unfortunately, it's not "as simple as that"
I gave my car up shortly after moving to the city, and I'd much rather share the road with motorcycles than cars. Cars encourage a sense of immunity and entitlement when driving, whereas smaller vehicles encourage self-awareness and road-sharing. Keep cars in the suburbs, the country, and dedicated arteries of the city - and leave the bulk of urban roads to people with more space-efficient vehicles.
That's a lovely thought, to me. And about as realistic as banning motorcycles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've never..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've never..
If I drive a bigger truck than you I can sue you for the distress you cause me for driving puny vehicle?
"So knowing how likely accidents are and that most accidents aren't caused by sheer stupidity but simply by the fact that humans occasionally make mistakes, people who ride bikes are just taking a very unreasonable risk, and they should take responsibility for it."
Most roads started as game trails and/or foot paths; Motorized vehicles have no business being on them.
Now take responsibility for your mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The girl texting the guy driving is not at fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kudoz to the lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smart - Not only crashed up your car, but ditched your girlfriend too, lol, what a tool!
Unless she's stupid enough to stay - then it would seem they are made for each other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I can't understand is a lawyer who didn't explain to them there is no liability that would stick to the girl. Instead they wasted time and resources trying to get her in court as well. Of course it occurs to me she might have been at home and they were suing her to try and add another insurance company to the party.
The driver who hit them, didn't exactly get the super sentence for being an idiot they would have liked either. Less than $1k in fines, community service talking about how hes an idiot, and still gets to drive. (IIRC)
I'm not even sure they ever met the girl who texted him until court time. I am sure the accident reconstruction now as a standard thing looks to see cell phone activity for the time before the crash. He was trying to complete the text just before the accident and dialing 911.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Party A sends text to Party B.
-Party B realizes they are in what could be a dangerous situation, should they respond to text from Party A at that time, and puts off replying until in a safe situation/place.
-Problem solved, potential disaster averted, and cheese for everyone, unless they don't like cheese, in which case the lack of cheese is to be celebrated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Training
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need to Concious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How often during texting does "what I am doing" get transmitted? Probably often enough so that his girlfriend KNEW he was driving somewhere.
THAT, is the point; you "personal responsibility avoiders." This isn't about the guy avoiding responsibility, it is about punishing the secondary sources. To correct a behaviour, you have to attack it from all sides, if only ONE other person could have stopped the accident, they should have.
Now shush and actually read the lies you write, "the only way to stop texting and driving is to not text and drive" is a pathetic example of deferred responsibility.
Fact is that EVERYONE shares some level of burden. The networks for not growing a backbone and shutting cell-service down if going faster than a specific speed. The "We want to argue about the first amendment because we've never lived in anything else, yet only want to cause riots because of having no importance in life" people who seriously need to be 'silenced' (as they so fear.) The People who text regardless of knowing, hell blame the movie industry for making it "socially acceptable" for talking on a cellphone, and I've seen a few instances of texting in common media.
This crud is what happens because society doesn't give a damn, and NONE of you have ANY personal responsibility. So go away. I hate you all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]